Flat Earth

[Craig Murray]

That's not a display of curvature. It is perspective with the horizon and vanishing point.

You think? I'm not sure how some youtube video convinced you of that, but it doesnt make sense to me.

If the Earth is flat I would expect something on the horizon to get smaller and smaller and smaller until I can't see it anymore. But it would NOT get cut off at the bottom by the water line.

This seems a pretty obvious proof of curvature to me. You can continue to repeat your mantra about "it's vanishing point bro" but that does not make sense. Think about the rocket, does it get cut off? Why not? What's so special about the horizon that cuts things off? That's right, curvature.

[Craig Murray]

Just watched as much of that balls out physics guy as I could. He's not even talking about why things get cut off at the bottom. He's just mostly babbling.

You don't need a youtube video to understand perspective. If the water line is halfway up the building, that's curvature. This seems pretty obvious to me.

[Humanfit]

Actually, shouldn't it, by your logic, be tilted away from you. You shouldn't see them as standing parallel but rising away from you at an angle. On a sphere "level" to the building would look at an angle to me observing from a distance. Your gonna need more than a 17 hr. Day to explain that one. Besides, it's already moot because according to the official maths, the Willis tower (tallest building in chi town) would be farther underneath the line of sight (1482.6 ft.) than it is tall (1473 ft.). To clarify, the top of the Willis tower would be hidden (1482.6 ft.) below the line of sight. The curve maths are patantly and provably not observable.

[Craig Murray]

Actually, shouldn't it, by your logic, be tilted away from you. You shouldn't see them as standing parallel but rising away from you at an angle. On a sphere "level" to the building would look at an angle to me observing from a distance.

Yes the building would angle slightly away from you. Probably not enough to even be noticeable if you're close enough to still see the building. I don't see a problem with my observation here at all.

it's already moot because according to the official maths, the Willis tower (tallest building in chi town) would be farther underneath the line of sight (1482.6 ft.) than it is tall (1473 ft.). To clarify, the top of the Willis tower would be hidden (1482.6 ft.) below the line of sight.

The Willis Tower is not built at sea (lake) level, so yes it should be visible above the horizon by whatever amount it's foundation is above water level.

Also that distance is how far you can see at lake level, which means your eye is literally at the water line. Go to that curvature calculator and see what happens when you are 6 feet tall standing on the deck of a boat that is 4 feet above the water line. All of a sudden you can see much further and the water line comes way down again.

The water line comes way up the building, but not all the way up, and so that's your argument that the Earth is Flat? Wouldn't that be an argument that the Earth is larger than they say? It's still being obscured by the waterline, which proves curvature.

So at this point you've admitted curvature, but you are arguing about the amount....

[Humanfit]

Yes the building would angle slightly away from you. Probably not enough to even be noticeable if you're close enough to still see the building. I don't see a problem with my observation here at all.



The Willis Tower is not built at sea (lake) level, so yes it should be visible above the horizon by whatever amount it's foundation is above water level.

Also that distance is how far you can see at lake level, which means your eye is literally at the water line. Go to that curvature calculator and see what happens when you are 6 feet tall standing on the deck of a boat that is 4 feet above the water line. All of a sudden you can see much further and the water line comes way down again.

The water line comes way up the building, but not all the way up, and so that's your argument that the Earth is Flat? Wouldn't that be an argument that the Earth is larger than they say? It's still being obscured by the waterline, which proves curvature.

So at this point you've admitted curvature, but you are arguing about the amount....

I just did the math, at a distance of 40 miles over Lake Michigan, 753' of the Willis tower's 1450' height would still be visible over the line of sight given that the observer 6' plus elevation difference of +33' is 39' from the observer across the radian distance of 40 miles from Michigan city. I yield my argument on this point. Sucks to be wrong but god DAMN it felt good to math! ps my math could be wrong so do it for yourself!

[Craig Murray]

I yield my argument on this point. Sucks to be wrong but god DAMN it felt good to math! !

Well my respect for you just went up like the waterline on the Willis Tower! Props. If more people could say that as easily, the world would be a better place.

[Craig Murray]

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve...&unit=imperial

10' elevation over the water, 40 miles ... yields 870'

That assumes the building itself has a foundation of lake level, which it does not. I don't have this actual number so I can't add that it. You seemed to suggest 33'.

But yeah... you can see even without that, just being 10 feet above the water yourself takes it way down to under 900 feet.

And yeah, doing match rocks! This is what I was talking about in the beginning... think for yourself.

[Humanfit]

One step closer to the truth is always worth admitting your wrong. Let's hear some more of your reasons for spherical thinking?

[Humanfit]

Don't forget lake level isn't sea level. Chicago elevation is 595' and Michigan city is 627'. For the record.

[Craig Murray]

according to that calculator a 10 foot increase in your viewpoint results in a 200' change in waterline at 40 miles away. That's a lot.